[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[E. Motions to Refer or Recommit]
[Â§ 26. Purpose and Effect]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4651-4662]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                    E. MOTIONS TO REFER OR RECOMMIT
 
Sec. 26. Purpose and Effect

Expression of Minority Opinion

Sec. 26.1 One purpose of the motion to recommit is to give those 
    Members opposed to the bill an opportunity to call for a final 
    expression of opinion by the House on the bill.

    On May 15, 1939,(8) the following occurred on the floor 
of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 84 Cong. Rec. 5535, 5536, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) The unfinished business is the 
    reading of the engrossed copy of the bill (H.R. 6260) making 
    appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1940, for civil
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4652]]

     functions administered by the War Department, and for other 
    purposes.

        The bill was read the third time.
        Mr. [D. Lane] Powers [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Powers: I am, Mr. Speaker.

        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies, and the Clerk will report 
    the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Powers moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
        Appropriations with instructions to report the same back 
        forthwith with amendments reducing the total amount of the bill 
        $50,000,000.

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the motion to recommit undertakes to do 
    indirectly what cannot be done directly.
        The amount carried in this bill, with these amendments, totals 
    $305,000,000. Part of it is for the Panama Canal, part for 
    cemeterial expense, part for the Signal Corps and Alaskan 
    Communications Commission, part for rivers and harbors, part for 
    flood control, and part for the United States Soldiers' Home. Of 
    the amount of $305,000,000, $277,000,000 is for rivers and harbors 
    and flood control, leaving only $28,000,000 for all these other 
    governmental activities. A reduction of $50,000,000 would take away 
    a large part of the money carried in the two amendments voted in 
    the House last Wednesday. A motion to recommit to do this cannot be 
    done. This motion to recommit attempts to do indirectly what cannot 
    be done directly. It proposes a second vote on the same 
    propositions that were voted on last Wednesday; therefore is 
    subject to a point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair may state, in connection with the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Mississippi, that the Chair 
    understands the purpose of the motion to recommit, one motion to 
    recommit always being in order after the third reading, is to give 
    to those Members opposed to the bill an opportunity to have an 
    expression of opinion by the House upon their proposition. It is 
    true that under the precedents it is not in order by way of a 
    motion to recommit to propose an amendment to an amendment 
    previously adopted by the House, but the motion now pending does 
    not specifically propose to instruct the Committee on 
    Appropriations to do that. The Chair is inclined to the opinion 
    that the motion to recommit in the form here presented is not 
    subject to a point of order.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Committee Action

Sec. 26.2 The House may, through use of the motion to recommit, 
    instruct one of its committees to take certain actions which are 
    not contrary to the rules of the House.

    On Aug. 22, 1966,(10) the House was considering H.R. 
16340, prohibiting picketing within 500 feet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 112 Cong. Rec. 20119, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4653]]

of any church in the District of Columbia. The following then occurred:

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) Is the gentleman 
    opposed to the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Edwards of California: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Edwards of California moves to recommit H.R. 16340 to 
        the District of Columbia Committee with instructions to hold 
        public hearings and to request a report of the Department of 
        Justice and the testimony of the Attorney General.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the motion to recommit. We cannot tell a committee 
    who to call as witnesses and what kind of hearings to hold.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House has authority to instruct 
    the committee. The motion is in order.

Investigation of Election Contest

Sec. 26.3 A resolution pertaining to an election contest may be 
    recommitted to an elections committee with an instruction calling 
    for a further investigation of the issues involved.

    On Aug. 19, 1937,(12) Mr. John H. Kerr, of North 
Carolina, called up House Resolution 309, relating to the election 
contest of Roy v Jenks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 9356, 9374, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That Arthur B. Jenks is not entitled to a seat in 
        the House of Representatives in the Seventy-fifth Congress from 
        the First Congressional District of the State of New Hampshire.
            Resolved, That Alphonse Roy is entitled to a seat in the 
        House of Representatives in the Seventy-fifth Congress from the 
        First Congressional District of the State of New Hampshire. . . 
        .

        Mr. [J. Mark] Wilcox [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: (13) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Florida rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wilcox: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Wilcox moves that this resolution be recommitted to the 
        committee; that the committee be and hereby is authorized, 
        empowered, and directed to take or cause to be taken the 
        testimony of the 458 Newton residents shown by the town 
        election records to have voted there in person on November 3, 
        1936, and such further testimony as the committee may consider 
        relevant to better enable it to determine the issue

[[Page 4654]]

        raised by this case; and that the committee be authorized to 
        expend such sums in its investigation as it may deem necessary, 
        and report its findings and recommendations to this House at 
        the next session of Congress.

        Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion to recommit.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 231, nays 129, 
    answered ``present'' 3, not voting 66. . . .
        So the motion was agreed to.

Authority of Speaker as to Committee Instructions

Sec. 26.4 Where the House adopts a motion to recommit it is not within 
    the province of the Speaker to advise or direct a committee in the 
    performance of its duty under the terms of the motion.

    On Aug. 19, 1937,(14) the House was considering House 
Resolution 309, relating to the election contest of Roy v Jenks. Mr. 
Jack Nichols, of Oklahoma, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 9374, 9375, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Speaker, we of the committee are in a quandary 
    in reference to the motion to recommit just adopted by the House 
    and would ask that the Speaker examine the motion, if that is 
    possible, and advise us what we are directed to do under the motion 
    to recommit.
        The Speaker: It is not within the province of the Chair to 
    undertake to direct the committee. The Chair feels the House 
    itself, under the terms of the motion, has directed the committee 
    as to the procedure.

Effect of Special Order

Sec. 26.5 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    bill back to the House with the recommendation that it be 
    recommitted to the committee from which reported is not in order 
    where the Committee of the Whole is considering the bill under a 
    resolution setting out conditions which do not permit such motion.

    On Aug. 10, 1950,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9176, the Defense Production Act of 1950. Mr. John E. 
Rankin, of Mississippi, rose with a preferential motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 12219, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rankin moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the

[[Page 4655]]

        bill back to the House with the recommendation that it be 
        recommitted to the Committee on Banking and Currency for 
        further hearings and study.

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this 
    being a straight motion to recommit, without instructions, it is 
    not permissible under the rule under which we are considering the 
    bill in Committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        That motion is not in order in Committee of the Whole, and the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, it is in order to make a motion that 
    the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House 
    with the recommendation that it be recommitted to the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency for further study and hearing.
        The Chairman: In the consideration of this bill the Committee 
    of the Whole is operating under a special rule which lays down the 
    conditions under which the bill is to be considered. The motion of 
    the gentleman from Mississippi is not in order at this time.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The special rule [H. Res. 740 agreed to 
Aug. 1, 1950] provided:

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 9176) to establish a system of 
    priorities and allocations for materials and facilities, authorize 
    the requisitioning thereof, provide financial assistance for 
    expansion of productive capacity and supply, strengthen controls 
    over credit, regulate speculation on commodity exchanges, and by 
    these measures facilitate the production of goods and services 
    necessary for the national security, and for other purposes, and 
    all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. That after 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue 
    not to exceed 1 day, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking 
    and Currency, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-
    minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order the substitute committee 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Banking and Currency now 
    in the bill, and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall 
    be considered under the 5-minute rule as an original bill. At the 
    conclusion of such consideration the committee shall rise and 
    report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
    adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on 
    any of the amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
    bill or committee substitute. The previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, 
    with or without instructions.

[[Page 4656]]

Effect of Recommittal on Amendments

Sec. 26.6 Where a bill reported to the House with committee amendments 
    is recommitted, it is again before the committee in its original 
    form--that is, as introduced or referred to that committee in the 
    first instance. The committee must again vote on any amendments 
    before rereporting the measure.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Sept. 20, 1972,(18) the House 
by unanimous consent recommitted the bill S. 1316, to amend section 301 
of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, to the Committee on Agriculture. 
Upon recommittal, the Parliamentarian advised the Committee on 
Agriculture that the Senate bill in the form passed by the Senate was 
pending before the committee, and that the committee would be required 
to act again upon the amendments in order to report the bill with 
committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 31370, 31371, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.7 Where the Senate recommits a bill to the committee which 
    reported it such action nullifies all amendments agreed to on the 
    floor, and, if this happens to a House bill, it goes back to the 
    Senate committee in the same form in which it came from the House.

    On May 11, 1949,(19) the Senate was considering H.R. 
3083, a Treasury and Post Office appropriations bill for fiscal 1950. 
The following discussion took place on the floor of the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 6039, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Vice President: (20) The Chair will advise 
    Senators that when a bill is recommitted to the committee from 
    which it emanates, such action nullifies all amendments that have 
    been agreed to on the floor of the Senate, and the bill goes back 
    to the committee--if it happens to be a House bill--in the same 
    shape in which it came to the Senate from the House, regardless of 
    the intention of any Senator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Alben W. Barkley (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Status of Recommitted Conference Report

Sec. 26.8 When a conference report is recommitted to the conference 
    committee the entire matter is again before that committee for 
    consideration.

    On Sept. 11, 1940,(1) the House was considering the 
conference re
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 86 Cong. Rec. 11938, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4657]]

port on S. 3550, making unlawful the transportation of convict-made 
goods in interstate commerce. Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, 
offered a motion to recommit the conference report and then posed the 
following parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Michener: If this motion should carry, the conferees would 
    then be permitted to go back and cut out all the exemptions which 
    they have included here if they wanted.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The whole matter would 
    be before the conferees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.9 Notwithstanding recommittal of a conference report to a 
    committee of conference with instructions, the subsequent 
    conference report is filed as privileged, given a new number, and 
    otherwise treated as a new and separate report.

    On May 8, 1963,(3) the House agreed to recommit the 
conference report (H. Rept. No. 275) on the supplemental appropriations 
bill (H.R. 5517) for fiscal 1963 to the committee of conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 109 Cong. Rec. 8043, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 14, 1963,(4) the new conference report on H.R. 
5517, renumbered House Report No. 290, was submitted for consideration 
to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at pp. 8502, 8503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.10 Where a conference report is recommitted to the committee of 
    conference, and a second report is then filed by the conferees, 
    this second report is numbered and otherwise treated by the House 
    as a new and separate report.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On June 30, 1962,(5) the 
conferees on the part of the House filed House Report No. 1955, the 
second conference report on S. 3161, to continue authority for the 
control of exports. The original conference report, House Report No. 
1949, had been recommitted to the committee of conference. When the 
second report was filed, the question arose as to whether it should be 
given a new number, or numbered as part II of House Report No. 1949. It 
was given a new number, and the first report was not acted upon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 12355, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommittal of Improperly Reported Bills

Sec. 26.11 Where the chairman of a committee admits that a bill was 
    reported when a

[[Page 4658]]

    quorum was not present in the committee, and a point of order is 
    sustained against the bill on that ground, the bill is recommitted 
    by order of the Speaker.

    On Oct. 11, 1968,(6) the House was considering S. 2511, 
to maintain and improve the income of producers of crude pine gum. Mr. 
Paul Findley, of Illinois, made a point of order against the 
consideration of the bill on the grounds that it had been reported from 
the Committee on Agriculture sitting without a quorum being present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 114 Cong. Rec. 30739, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (7) The Chair would like to inquire of 
    the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture if a quorum was 
    present when the bill was reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of 
    the Committee on Agriculture was not present the day this bill was 
    reported. The record indicates that there were only 14 members of 
    the committee present at the time it was reported.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Texas state that the 
    record of his committee shows there were 14 members present when 
    the bill was acted upon and reported out?
        Mr. Poage: That is correct.
        The Speaker: Clause 27 of rule XI clearly covers this 
    situation. Paragraph (e) of clause 27 of rule XI states:

            No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any 
        committee unless a majority of the committee were actually 
        present.

        Upon the statement of the chairman of the committee, a majority 
    of the committee were not actually present. Therefore, the point of 
    order is sustained; and the bill is recommitted to the Committee on 
    Agriculture.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 30751, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 11, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.12 Where a report of a committee fails to comply with the 
    provisions of the Ramseyer rule and a point of order is sustained 
    on that ground, the bill is recommitted to the committee reporting 
    it.

    On May 3, 1937,(9) the Clerk had just called up S. 709, 
to incorporate the National Education Association of the United States. 
Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 4123, 4124, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Speaker, if it appears from the report that 
    subsection 2(a) of rule XXIII (10) commonly known as the 
    Ramseyer rule, has not been complied with, is the bill 
    automatically recommitted to the committee from which it was 
    reported?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (11) If the point of order should be 
    sustained, under the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4659]]

    provision governing such cases the bill would automatically be 
    recommitted to the committee from which it was reported.

        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
    consideration of the bill (S. 709) that the so-called Ramseyer rule 
    has not been complied with. . . .
        The Speaker: The point of order is sustained, and the bill is 
    recommitted to the Committee on Education.

Resolution Certifying Contumacious Conduct

Sec. 26.13 The House has adopted a motion recommitting a resolution 
    certifying the contempt of a committee witness to the committee 
    which reported the contumacious conduct.

    On July 13, 1971,(12) the House was considering House 
Resolution 534, certifying the contumacious conduct of Frank Stanton, 
president of CBS, as a witness before the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce. After the previous question was ordered on motion by 
Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, Mr. Hastings Keith, of 
Massachusetts, rose to his feet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 24723, 24752, 24753, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keith: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (13) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keith: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Keith moves to recommit House Resolution 534 to the 
        Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered on the motion to recommit.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 226, nays 181, 
    answered ``present'' 2, not voting 24. . . .
        So the motion to recommit was agreed to.

Bill on Consent Calendar

Sec. 26.14 A bill on the Consent Calendar has been recommitted to the 
    committee which reported it.

    On Apr. 4, 1949,(14) the House was considering a bill on 
the Consent Calendar (H.R. 1823), to establish a Women's Reserve as a 
branch of the Coast Guard Reserve. Immediately after the House adopted 
an amendment, Mr. Herbert C. Bonner, of North Carolina, then rose to 
his feet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 95 Cong. Rec. 3806, 3807, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bonner: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (15) The Clerk will report the motion 
    to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4660]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bonner moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
        Merchant Marine and Fisheries. . . .

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Marcantonio) there were--ayes 107, noes 89. . . .
        The motion to recommit was agreed to.

Bill on Private Calendar

Sec. 26.15 A bill on the Private Calendar was, by unanimous consent, 
    recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary.

    On Dec. 17, 1963,(16) the Clerk of the House called up 
the bill S. 1272, for the relief of Viktor Jaanimets. The following 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 109 Cong. Rec. 24796, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Is there objection to 
    the present consideration of the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael A.] Feighan [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the bill S. 1272 be recommitted to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.

Recommittal of Pending Resolution

Sec. 26.16 The recommittal of a funding resolution and a privileged 
    report thereon does not prevent the resolution from being called up 
    by unanimous consent.

    On Sept. 30, 1966,(18) the House recommitted House 
Resolution 1028, and its accompanying report No. 2158, providing funds 
for the Committee on House Administration, to that committee. Mr. Omar 
T. Burleson, of Texas, then rose to a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 24548, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Burleson: Mr. Speaker, by the report and resolution being 
    recommitted, would that preclude a request on the part of the 
    chairman of the committee to call the [resolution] up under 
    consent?
        The Speaker: (19) The Chair will recognize the 
    gentleman for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Burleson: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the 
    immediate consideration of House Resolution 1028. . . .
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

Instructions to Modify Amendment

Sec. 26.17 Absent a special rule, a motion to recommit may not include 
    instructions to mod

[[Page 4661]]

    ify any part of an amendment previously agreed to by the House.

    On May 4, 1960,(20) Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, 
rose with the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 106 Cong. Rec. 9416, 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day I addressed a 
    parliamentary inquiry to the Chair to which response was made. The 
    parliamentary inquiry went to the question as to whether or not, as 
    the Senate bill has been reported by the committee, a motion to 
    recommit with instructions would be in order. Mr. Speaker, to 
    further clarify the matter, the committee struck out all after the 
    enacting clause of the Senate bill and substituted a complete 
    amendment, which I take it would be offered if and when the bill 
    were to be read for consideration. Under those circumstances, Mr. 
    Speaker, and in view of the fact that what some of us refer to as 
    the administration bill, introduced by the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Kilburn] is now on the calendar, the parliamentary inquiry is 
    whether or not under the rules of the House a motion to recommit 
    with instructions would be in order in order that a record vote 
    could be had on such amendment as a substitute.
        The Speaker: (1) The gentleman from Indiana has been 
    kind enough to discuss this with the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On further examining the rules and precedents of the House, 
    under the situation as it exists, when we go into the Committee of 
    the Whole and the amendment is adopted, and then agreed to in the 
    House, the rules are that a motion to recommit with instructions 
    will not be in order.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See also 99 Cong. Rec. 6156, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., June 5, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: If an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is agreed to in Committee of the Whole and ratified by the 
House, that text cannot thereafter be changed by a motion to recommit 
with instructions.

Sec. 26.18 Where the House has adopted an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, such amendment cannot, absent a special rule, be 
    further amended by way of a motion to recommit; and only a simple 
    motion to recommit would be in order.

    On June 17, 1952,(3) the House was considering S. 658, 
to amend the Communications Act of 1934. Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of 
Indiana, rose with the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 98 Cong. Rec. 7421, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: In view of the fact that the matter before us is a 
    Committee amendment, a complete amendment to the whole bill, would 
    any motion to recommit, except a straight motion to recommit, be in 
    order?

[[Page 4662]]

        The Speaker: (4) That is the only motion that would 
    be in order under the rule.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 5. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 9416, 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 4, 
        1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Reported in Disagreement by Conferees

Sec. 26.19 A motion to recommit an amendment reported in disagreement 
    by the conferees is not in order.

    On Oct. 17, 1967,(6) the House was considering the 
conference report and amendments in disagreement on H.R. 11476, 
appropriations for the Department of Transportation for fiscal 1968. 
After the conference report had been agreed to, the House proceeded to 
consider the amendments reported in disagreement, when Mr. Sidney R. 
Yates, of Illinois raised the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 29044, 29048, 29049, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, is it in order to move to recommit this 
    particular amendment to conference?
        The Speaker: (7) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Illinois that at this point it would not be in order 
    to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------